Are you really anti-war?

Question

Hitler was a secular leader of a nation of factional religious groups.
Hitler was an absolute dictator.
Hitler employed propaganda, hate-mongering, xenophobia and government-sponsored terror against his own people.
Hitler made war against his neighbors.
Hitler's occupying armies committed various atrocities. against their conquered populations.
Hitler used weapons of mass destruction.
Hitler had a nuclear weapon program.
We tried, in good faith, to secure peace with Hitler.
Hitler didn't want peace.
Hitler was a seven-figure murderer.
We destroyed Hitler's empire.

Were we wrong?

Substitute Saddam Hussein for Hitler above.
Were we wrong?

If you answered "yes" to both questions, Congratulations! You are an intellectually honest conscientious objector.
If you answered one differently than the other, you are not anti-war; you are just anti-Bush.

I respectfully disagree with pacifists.
I condescendingly disagree with hypocrites.

Al Cracka:
Do you mind answering the last 2 questions?

expose_neocons:
ditto

colarepublic:
ditto

ervin_parker:
ditto

B.Kevorkian:
ditto

Señor Spok:
ditto

usefulidiot230:
"Iraq no weapons of mass Destruction.. That was a lie. "
Saddam had AND used them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

""iraq" we told our Allies to "F" off we are attacking with out you."
Our 27 troop-sending allies disagree:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

dinodino:
" Saddam did not have a nuclear weapons program."
History disagrees:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm
"He never conquered any other country."
Read your history:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/2/newsid_2526000/2526937.stm
"Saddam was not a seven figure murderer."
Wrong again his death toll was, "Approaching 2,000,000."
We count seven figures, how's your math?
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

azawalli:
"Germany did not have a nuclear weapons program"
Sure they did, fortunately we won while it was still in its fledgling state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_energy_project

"In short, there is no way of justifying the U.S. invasion of Iraq."
Unless you answer "no" to the next to last question in the original post.

"...I don't get my facts from FOX News."
Me neither. Check my sources; see any Fox?

Robert S :
You are REAL Americans!

old man:
Most of your post is nonresponsive, but I have to answer this:
"North Korea is starving its people to death every day, where is your outrage? In Darfur they are murdering and raping women and children every day, where is your outrage?"
I'm plenty outraged. Will you join me in calling on the President to intervene WW2-style against the monsters perpetrating the atrocities you mention?

Dan C:
Interesting how you don't rebut my fact with your speculation, "Hussein had no WMDs after the first Gulf war."
I say he used them and so does the BBC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

James B:
Like most others listed above, you are non-responsive. Would you answer the last 2 questions in the original post?

Dan C:
"Okay, do you actually read your sources, or do you have trouble reading my posts?"
Yes and no.
"According to your own source, the gas attacks occurred in 1988."
I said Hitler used weapons of mass destruction [no qualification added.]

"The first Gulf War occurred AFTER that. If you will notice, I said Hussein had no WMDs 'AFTER the first Gulf war [qualification added by you].'"

I use the fact that Hitler used WMDs to demonstrate the tyrant's state of mind, not to establish a legalistic timeline. I understand your point, but it fails to draw a distinction between the minds of two madmen who used WMDs against people they hated.

"And I didn't need to "refute your point." The whole thesis of my post is that you are using a bad analogy to make your argument. No refutation is required where an argument is invalid."
But if my analogy is so bad it should bear rebuttal, not an alternate theory.

Answer 1

What about those of us who said NO to both questions ?

Answer 2

Well, you have some good points, but . . .

Hitler was the aggressor, Hussein was contained.

We did not declare war to "stop Hitler", no matter what our popular history would have you believe. If that were the case, we would have gotten involved in 1939 or 1940. The ONLY reason we entered WWII was the attack on Pearl Harbor. Germany declared war on the US after we declared war on Japan, which forced us to declare war on Germany.

Hussein posed no direct threat to the US, nor was he likely to in any foreseeable future. Hitler likely would have moved on us when he was done with England (see declaration of war above).

Hussein had no WMDs after the first Gulf war.

Yes, they were both ruthless dictators--and so are many others. Is it our job to remove them all from power? Do we have the right, the will, the economy to interfere like that?

So, I think your comparison has some flaws--ergo it is not hypocritical to say toppling Hitler was right, but toppling Hussein was wrong.

I am not a pacifist, but I believe that war should be a last resort (and I do mean LAST). War is NEVER good--it is sometimes necessary, but it is never good.

Addition:

Okay, do you actually read your sources, or do you have trouble reading my posts? According to your own source, the gas attacks occurred in 1988. The first Gulf War occurred AFTER that. If you will notice, I said Hussein had no WMDs AFTER the first Gulf war. Please read before you respond.

And I didn't need to "refute your point." The whole thesis of my post is that you are using a bad analogy to make your argument. No refutation is required where an argument is invalid.

Additional addition: "I use the fact that Hitler used WMDs to demonstrate the tyrant's state of mind, not to establish a legalistic timeline. I understand your point, but it fails to draw a distinction between the minds of two madmen who used WMDs against people they hated."

True, strictly speaking. But the issue was never Saddam's MIND, it was his potential threat to the world (minimal, AT THE TIME of the current invasion). Here again we see where your analogy that Husein=Hitler fails. Hitler was in possession of his WMDs at the time of the war, Hussein was not. Hitler was the agressor in WWII, Hussein was not,etc. Vis my entire previous post.

If you want to argue that Saddam was a "bad man",and that we needed to get rid of him, fine--though I seriously worry about such a "world police" attitude. My whole point has been that you cannot equate Hitler with Hussein,and that using the comparison is a bad analogy, and thus an invalid argument. This tactic was used in the early stages of the build-up to the war. It was incorrect then, and it is incorrect now.

Answer 3

We were told that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was about weapons of mass destruction. It was a lie and the government knew it was a lie at the time.

Since that lie was exposed the administration has clung to the implication that the invasion was a response to 9/11. That's another lie meant to cover the first lie. Most of us know by now that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Comparing Saddam to Hitler doesn't wash. Hitler declared war on the U.S. That's not the case with Iraq. I'm not defending Saddam, he was a bad man. But unless you think we should take out all bad men you can't justify this war. As for terrorism -- it's only gotten worse since the invasion.

If you support the occupation of Iraq at least have the decency and honesty to call it what it really is: A bungled attempt to establish an oil colony.

Answer 4

Saddam did not have a nuclear weapons program. Saddam did not have an air force. Saddam did not have a Navy. Saddam did not have an Army that in any way compares to the one Germany had in 1939. Saddam was bottled up inside his country and wasn't a threat to anyone. Saddam did not have an empire, in fact he was defeated in the First Gulf War and fought to a stalemate with Iran. He never conquered any other country. Saddam was not a seven figure murderer.
Saddam was a third rate dictator of a third rate power.

I am not a pacifist. WWII was a just war. Invading Iraq wasn't.

Anyone who thinks Hitler and Saddam Hussien are comparable figures is either being intellectually dishonest or just plain ignorant.

Answer 5

Not that I'm defending Hitler, but Germany did not have a nuclear weapons program (source: "Heisenberg's War" by Thomas Powers).

As for the rest of your question, there isn't any way that any sane person would equate Saddam Hussein and Hitler. As well, Hitler was in danger of changing the power balance of the entire world; Saddam Hussein was a marginalized dictator of a 3rd rate military force who posed a threat only to his own people.

Biggest difference: U.S. intervention in World War II helped make the world more secure. U.S. intervention in Iraq has resulted in making the world less safe by fomenting militancy among countries susceptible to Islamic militancy.

In short, there is no way of justifying the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Answer 6

Saddam was no Hitler. How many countries had Hitler invaded before we intervened? How many countries did Saddam invade, Kuwait and we routed him out. Your comparison is very weak. North Korea is starving its people to death every day, where is your outrage? In Darfur they are murdering and raping women and children every day, where is your outrage? I am all for finding and killing those responsible for 9-11, they were not in Iraq until we invaded. Your own G.O.P. Senators have given up on this fiasco, why don't you open your eyes!

Answer 7

in any game or venture of any sort, a good leader marshals his forces to the best effect. I am not against war in general for self defense, to secure vital resources against a potential enemy, or to rescue deserving people.... I have great difficulty getting behind the war in Iraq because I cannot find a logical argument in myself that can justify it in view of the three reasons I stated...

But at this point, because the current admin. has extended the US into an ill advised war instead of pursuing a conservative attack on our enemies without bogging us down, I have to say that the war is upon us....but I will never vote for a Republican again for the rest of my life because of their botched approach (from the very beginning)...Iraq was contained in 2000...Bush put land troops there and dismantled the government....now if we leave there will be nothing but anarchy....we have to put something to right there, but GW Bush is an idiot

Answer 8

Not Anti war.. You did make some wrong assumptions though.
Iraq no weapons of mass Destruction.. That was a lie.
Hitler was a endangering the entire known world... "Iraq" not even close.
Hilter. We attacked responding to our allies asking for help.
"iraq" we told our Allies to "F" off we are attacking with out you.
So even though there are some things the same. You left out the real big important ones......

Answer 9

You forgot something, US corporations bavked Hitker from his very begginings ( Henry Ford was decorated by the German Nazi Party ), USA reffused to help the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War while Hitler and Mussolini sent their Luftwafe and Condor Legfion in support of the fascist regimen of Franco.USA had this policy as USA wanted the Nazi regime to destroy the Soviet Russia.Its the same reason that lead USA to reffuse to accept Jews during WWll ( Jews were mostly Marxist activists).

Answer 10

The turning element for the Vietnam war replaced into whilst Nixon asked the Joint Chiefs of team what the plan replaced into to win the war. whilst they replied that there replaced into no plan, Nixon desperate adequate replaced into adequate. in assessment, whilst being interviewed for the pastime of commanding the eu theatre for international war 2, Eisenhower reached into his briefcase and provided a plan he'd drawn up. It replaced into an surprising and extremely different plan of action that he'd created on his very own initiative. He replaced into extremely the terrific candidate, and he did get the pastime performed.

Answer 11

yes, I am.
#1. you really cant exchange Saddam for Hitler, cause he didnt do anything even a tiny bit near what Hitler did, so nice try, but no.
#2. being antiwar means being anti-violence So we werent wrong in removing him. he was wrong in what he did. but heres the thing, I'm antiwar, but I know it happens but when it happens for no reasons that are reasonable, thats when I have a problem with it, and thats whats happening now!

If you love war so much, you must be Bush's best friend (especially since you beleive all his lies too!!!)

oh, and yeah...I AM anti-Bush too!!